Talk:Gun show loophole/Archive 2

FOPA and the gun show loophole
This seems to be under discussion here and under the "Lead section" discussion, which is rather distracting. I suggest that we keep it here, and once it's ironed out, we can incorporate it into the lead, per the excellent guidance in WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

There are numerous good quality sources that discuss the relationship between FOPA and the gun show loophole. Judging from Anastrophe's objections to this topic, there must be some sources that discount such a relationship. Our job as editors is not to argue the relationship here, but to find the best quality sources on the topic and present them here to the reader in as NPOV manner as we're able, not putting undue weight on either POV. I will go try to find a handful of good - the "gooder" the better - quality sources on this and present them here, and I suggest interested parties do the same. Lightbreather (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few. The 1999 DOJ report and the 2013 Jackson Free Press article were already given earlier by Darknipples. I've just put them into WP:CS1 format.
 * (Scroll down to III. A Step Backward: The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986.)

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

To maintain balance of perspective on this topic, here is a citation that provides the NRA's perspective on the GSL FOPA relationship. - *Once again, though, things didn`t go the way anti-gunners hoped. Gun sales actually increased at a faster pace than the increase in the U.S. population. And as gun control supporters are sorely aware, the nation`s thousands of gun shows each year are among the main reasons for that trend. That`s why, in the 1990s, anti-gun groups and politicians began claiming a so-called "gun show loophole" gives criminals "easy access" to guns by letting people other than dealers sell guns at shows without running their transactions through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). To be sure, it`s not a "loophole," because FOPA made clear no license is required to make "occasional sales, exchanges or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby," or to "[sell] all or part of [a] personal collection of firearms." But an argument over legal technicalities misses the point. It`s not about criminals getting guns--the federal government`s own studies have found that less than one percent of people in prison for using guns in felonies got their guns from shows. For gun control supporters, it`s really about the American people owning guns. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2010/the-war-on-gun-shows.aspx - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Addressing the cites directly above in reverse order:
 * The NRA's statement is actually dispositive that there is no actual 'loophole', so doesn't really support that FOPA itself is the proximate cause of same.
 * The cfr's statement does draw that relationship, even though its claim is patently false (The law doesn't "allow" convicted felons to buy firearms. That convicted felons violate the law and buy firearms isn't the same thing).
 * The Jackson Free Press also suggests a relationship, even though it only barely makes such a case - but it does suggest it, rightly or wrongly.
 * The USDOJ source, however - specifically bullet-point two - does draw an indirect relationship, based upon the change of definition of those formally engaged in doing business such that more private individuals could sell firearms without an FFL, and thus without performing background checks at gun shows (without specifically calling out gun shows per se though).
 * The burden appears to be that while 'gun show loophole' is most specifically and commonly used to identify 'gun show sales without a background check', it is not unreasonable to identify the inferred connection to FOPA based upon several reliable sources.Anastrophe (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

(SEE FOPA SECTION & BOTTOM OF LEAD SECTION ON TALK PAGE) (A) The Jackson Free Press can of course publish whatever they like, however this is simply incorrect. The term 'gun show loophole' has nothing to do with FFL's or FOPA. This has already been established by the numerous cites within the article. A single cite that incorrectly characterizes the term isn't meaningful or notable to the article. Anastrophe (talk) 03:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)(DN) Which citations within the article explicitly state "The term 'gun show loophole' has nothing to do with FFL's or FOPA."? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 03:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC) (A):"Find a reliable source that says that the term "Gun Show Loophole refers to changes made by FOPA in regard to FFL's", and we'll have a starting point for discussion." (DN) I suggested this. (section III & IX) http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/AppendixC.htm#N_8_ - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC) (A):And? I scanned and searched through it, I didn't see anything that supports what you suggest. Please quote precisely (and briefly) the portion you believe makes this claim. (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC) - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (A)"Which again is a false assertion, from a strongly biased source. Private individuals have *always* been able to sell firearms at gun shows without background checks." Anastrophe (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC) - (DN) My (somewhat limited) understanding is that both sides are just referencing and interpreting the same laws differently. It is unclear (to me) why assertions made by either side should be considered "false" as long as they explicitly reference GSL in a relevant manner, and are presented concurrently with relevant opposing citations i.e. one side's interpretation of the law shouldn't trump the other. Or, are you referring to something other than WP:POV & WP:Balance? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A. I don't really understand what you wrote about the NRA statement DN gave. Would you say that this is a fair summary:
 * The NRA, citing federal government studies that found less than one percent of imprisoned felons said they got their guns from shows, says that when gun control supporters refer to the "gun show loophole" they are not really talking about criminals getting guns, but about the American people owning guns.
 * --Lightbreather (talk) 03:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Anastrophe: Please rest assured I have no desire to draw any kind of synthetic relationship between GSL and FOPA. The inferred causation is by the sources themselves, and appears evident in the quotes that LB and I have provided. FOPA simply keeps appearing in conjunction with searches for the term GSL. Granted, they are not always mentioned in the exact same sentence, but the context in these particular sources make it explicitly clear that FOPA is at least part of GSL etymology, in that, GSL refers to loophole(s) in the law (FOPA) regarding gun shows and private party sales. Whether or not this is considered accurate by other sources relating to GSL is another matter that should also be made clear, in a concurrent manner, if it hasn't already. Darknipples (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"But one of the proposals that seems to be beyond argument is background checking — checking that is already required in Illinois, but not in many neighboring states and certainly not in states where huge gun shows are much more common. This is what people are talking about when they refer to the "loophole" at gun shows. They are called "private party" gun sales, and 33 states have no regulations covering them. Even federal law, amended a few years back under something called the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, can't touch these private sales. Federal dealers must keep records. Private sellers don't have to in most places." http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-03-10/opinion/ct-perspec-0310-guns-20130310_1_gun-show-big-clips-array-of-gun-legislation Darknipples (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"The NRA also scored a long-lasting victory in the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, which eased rules so individuals could sell weapons from private collections without possessing a federal firearms license. That redefinition of what it meant to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms opened up what came to be known as the “gun-show loophole,” in which private sellers circumvent paperwork and background-check requirements imposed on licensees. To this day it “handcuffs the ATF,” as gun-control advocate Dennis Henigan put it." http://conservativeread.com/how-the-nra-became-atfs-biggest-enemy/ - Darknipples (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"However, critics maintain that a so-called "gun show loophole," codified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, effectively allows anyone, including convicted felons, to purchase firearms without a background check." http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735 - Darknipples (talk) 23:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Under the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals “not engaged in the business” of selling firearms are not required to conduct background checks on buyers or maintain records of sale. For gun-grabbers, this law is known as the “gun show loophole.”" www.prisonplanet.com/obama-targets-gun-shows.html - Darknipples (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Gun shows haven't always played a vital role in the retail gun trade. Historically, they were conducted to bring collectors together and were off-limits to dealers. The 1968 Gun Control Act, passed after the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., established a licensing system that required dealers to sell guns only at their business locations. But in November 1984, ATF issued a rule that let dealers "conduct business temporarily" at gun shows. Congress solidified that rule in 1986 with the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which legalized gun-show sales by firearms dealers and allowed "occasional" private sales at gun shows by individuals without licenses. Gun-control advocates' campaigns in Colorado and Congress to "close the gun-show loophole," begun in response to Columbine, aim to reverse a key feature of the 1986 law by requiring criminal background checks and purchase records on private sales at gun shows. Colorado proponents suffered a setback Friday when a legislative committee killed a gun-show bill backed by Gov. Bill Owens." http://extras.denverpost.com/news/shot0213.htm - Darknipples (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law clearly defined private sellers as anyone who sold no more than four firearms per year. But the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act lifted that restriction and loosely defined private sellers as people who do not rely on gun sales as the principal way of obtaining their livelihood." http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html - Darknipples (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"However, critics maintain that a so-called “gun show loophole,” codified in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, effectively allows anyone, including convicted felons, to purchase firearms without a background check." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gun-policy/ - Darknipples (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"Federal law requires that persons engaged in dealing firearms must hold a federal license and perform background checks on all firearm purchases, however under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals who only make occasional sales within their state of residence are not required to conduct background checks, nor are they required to maintain records of sale." http://humanevents.com/2013/07/07/gun-rights-activists-split-on-gun-show-loophole/ - Darknipples (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"What is the gun show loophole? The gun show loophole appeared in 1986, when Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act that differentiates between licensed gun dealers and private sellers." http://www.ncpa.org/media/sheriff-bailey-chief-monroe-close-gun-show-loophole - Darknipples (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The National Center for Policy Analysis has been characterized as a "Right Wing Think Tank" by the People for the American Way, a politically liberal advocacy organization.- Darknipples (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1360&context=lclr Darknipples (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=dpzN711aYlQC&pg=PA126&dq=gun+show+loophole&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ivm6U6L3JcK2yASNu4DIDQ&ved=0CBsQ6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=gun%20show%20loophole&f=false Darknipples (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(pages 95-96-97) (With regard to gun show loophole, private sellers, the secondary market, and FOPA) - "The secondary market consists of transfers by unlicensed private parties such as the individual attendees at gun shows (Cook, Molliconi, and Cole 1995 et al. 2002)" - "Even if the purchaser is a prohibited person, let alone a non-prohibited person with criminal intent, a private party may sell him a firearm without committing a crime. The key is that while it is always illegal for a prohibited person to buy a firearm, it is only illegal to sell a firearm to a prohibited person if the seller knows or has “reasonable cause to believe” that he is doing so (U.S. Code) How did this come to pass? The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act apply only to those who are “engaged in a business” of selling firearms. Any clear understanding of what “engaged in a business” might mean was abolished by the 1986 Firearm Owners’ per style sheet Protection Act (U.S. Code). FOPA specifically excluded from the scope of engagement in a the business a person who makes “occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms” (U.S. Code). The practical result was to make it much more difficult to set an upper limit to the number of firearms sales that an individual could make without being required to have a license and comply with the safeguards described above (Braga and Kennedy 2000, Wintermute 2007, 2009b). ATF summarized the situation this way in a 1999 study of gun shows: “Unfortunately, the effect of the 1986 amendments has often been to frustrate the prosecution of unlicensed dealers masquerading as collectors or hobbyists but who are really trafficking firearms to felons or other prohibited persons” (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 1999b" http://books.google.com/books?id=sQxNVhV-W7oC&lpg=PA95&ots=M-5qgFGSgC&dq=%22gun%20show%20loophole%22&lr&pg=PA95#v=onepage&q&f=false Darknipples (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

UNITED STATES CODE CONGRESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE NEWS - 99th Congress-Second Session 1986 Volume 4 - legislative history - public laws 99-272 Cont’d to 99-449 (page 11) - "Determining Who Needs A License" – A feature with major impact is the change in defining who is required to obtain a license as a dealer, manufacturer or importer. This is an area that has many who use firearms very upset. Persons who are “engaged in the business” of manufacturing, importing, or buying and selling firearms are required to obtain a license. S. 49 and H.R. 945 define “engaged in the business” in terms of “the principal objective of livelihood and profit” whose underlying intent is “predominantly one of obtaining a livelihood and pecuniary gain” (emphasis added) (S. 49, sec. 101(6), pages 3-5) and 102(1); H.R. 945, sec. 101(6)). This definition, which does not follow the case law, is likely to have a serious weakening effect on GCA. Current law permits ordinary firearms owners to sell their firearms but not to “engage in the business” of selling firearms without a license. These provisions expand the number of persons who can engage in firearms transaction or importation without needing a license or having to comply with the record keeping requirements of the law. THIS DEFINITION HAS LOOPHOLES for a person, believing the public ought to be armed for self-protection, who sells large volumes of firearms at no markup price which does not make a profit, who would not be “engaged in the business.” Unfortunately, this new definition does not solve the AMBIGUITY that confronts an active collector. http://harrislawoffice.com/content/areas_of_practice/federal_firearms/legislative_history/FOPA%20House%20Report%2099-495.pdf - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(Anastrophe) "You may be mistakenly inferring that what follows Mr. Kennedy's assertion about "the whole gun show loophole" is supportive of his assertion about "the whole gun show loophole". It isn't." - How else is this assertion to be inferred? (DN)- (A)"The whole point of the term 'gun show loophole' is that guns can be sold by non-FFL's without having to perform background checks. That's the whole of the matter." - To my knowledge, GSL represents a political concept, held by one side, that there is a loophole in the laws affecting gun shows. Whether or not it is a non-FFL or an FFL that is acting as a private party, is not the issue. (DN) - (A) "It's what legislation in support of 'closing' the gun show loophole has as its intent." - I have since created a section for this. You will find that suggestions by USDOJ to close GSL explicitly reference laws which FOPA is directly responsible for. (DN) - (A) "Mr. Kennedy was always strongly in favor of any gun control that passed his desk. Would you suggest that the opening sentence of the article be written based on his inflammatory tone?" - No, and with regard to your comment regarding the statement by Handgun Control Inc. and Interactivetimeline.com, I see your point, however, to ignore these citations that assert a relation between GSL and FOPA would be disingenuous of me - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

According to multiple sources FOPA is a key component to the GSL controversy...Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), firearm dealers with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) were prohibited from doing business at gun shows (they were only permitted to do business at the address listed on their license). That changed with the enactment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), which allows FFLs to transfer firearms at gun shows provided they follow the provisions of the GCA and other pertinent federal regulations.... Darknipples (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"The NRA ultimately got much of what it wanted in the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA, nicknamed "Faux Pas'' by its opponents). The new law eased rules so individuals could sell weapons from private collections without possessing a federal firearms license. That redefinition of what it meant to be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms opened up what came to be known as the "gun-show loophole." in which private sellers circumvent paperwork and background-check requirements imposed on licensees. To this day it "handcuffs the ATF,'' as gun-control advocate Dennis Henigan put it.

FOPA also limited federal inspections to once a year, reduced paperwork violations to a misdemeanor, and required prosecutors to prove firearms dealers willfully violated these rules before revoking their licenses" http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/article/The-ATF-and-the-NRA-a-shared-history-4964934.php Darknipples (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20100121/the-war-on-gun-shows - First, FOPA allowed federally licensed firearm dealers to do business at gun shows. (Until then, a dealer could only operate at the address on his license.) Second, FOPA ended abusive prosecutions of gun collectors by making clear a person does not need a license to occasionally sell firearms to reduce or improve a personal gun collection. And third, FOPA eliminated the GCA`s record-keeping requirement on sales of handgun ammunition. (For more on that issue, see p. 50.) During the Clinton administration, however, two developments gave gun control supporters new hope of reducing gun sales.

First, the 1993 Brady bill increased dealer licensing fees significantly. Second, and more important, the 1994 Clinton crime bill included language that let the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms deny license renewals on the basis of local zoning ordinances. As a result of that and other Clinton administration policies, the number of FFLs in the country was reduced by 75 percent within just a few years.

Once again, though, things didn`t go the way anti-gunners hoped. Gun sales actually increased at a faster pace than the increase in the U.S. population. And as gun control supporters are sorely aware, the nation`s thousands of gun shows each year are among the main reasons for that trend.

That`s why, in the 1990s, anti-gun groups and politicians began claiming a so-called "gun show loophole" gives criminals "easy access" to guns by letting people other than dealers sell guns at shows without running their transactions through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Darknipples (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The NRA Refutes FOPA as being a "Loophole" "To be sure, it`s not a "loophole," because FOPA made clear no license is required to make "occasional sales, exchanges or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby," or to "[sell] all or part of [a] personal collection of firearms." But an argument over legal technicalities misses the point." https://www.nraila.org/articles/20100121/the-war-on-gun-shows - Darknipples (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"What “Loophole”? Anti-gunners call private individuals who sell a few guns from their personal collections--their personal property--the so-called “gun show loophole.” What some refer to as a “loophole” is actually federal law." https://www.nraila.org/articles/20091001/the-truth-about-gun-shows-1 - Darknipples (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

| What I saw at the gun show - Rolling Stone June 8, 2000 "At the national level, President Clinton and his congressional allies are trying to close what they call "the gun-show loophole" that lets thousands of guns be sold without background checks, registration or any record keeping at all. The heat is on. Gun shows as arms bazaars are a relatively recent phenomenon. The federal gun law passed after Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy were killed in 1968 didn't ban private gun sales between individuals but did require anyone in the business of selling guns to have a federal license and to sell only in a proper store. Dealers could display their goods at gun shows, but nobody was allowed to sell them there. Then, in 1986, Democratic Rep. Harold Volkmer and Republican Sen. James McClure – both recipients of the National Rifle Association's Legion of Honor award – sponsored a bill allowing dealers to actually sell at gun shows, making it easier for people to traffic in arms without the regulations imposed on those "engaged in the business." The bill passed, and President Reagan signed it."

"As a result, gun shows suddenly became places where huge numbers of weapons could change hands. While licensed dealers have to conduct business at the shows just as they do in their stores – running background checks before handing over the merchandise – ordinary folks can almost always sell firearms with no restrictions at all. They don't even have to rent a table in many states – they can simply wander the aisles or hang around in the parking lot, offering whatever to whomever, no questions asked. The attraction is obvious, both to law-abiding citizens who don't want to be bothered with paperwork and to the people who wouldn't be able to buy a gun at a store."

"Since the law was passed in 1986 that gave rise to retail gun shows, about 175 companies and individuals have gone into the business, staging more than 4,400 events a year. An average of 2,500 to 5,000 people show up for each, paying from five dollars to fifty dollars to get in." Darknipples (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the cite with the percentage of private sellers "25-50%" -- http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2013/jan/16/gun-show-loophole/ -- Darknipples (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

2013 - http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Agency-forms-unlikely-alliance-4975747.php#page-2 The NRA ultimately got much of what it wanted in the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. The new law eased rules so that individuals could sell weapons from private collections without possessing a federal firearms license. That redefinition of what it meant to be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms opened up what came to be known as the "gun show loophole," in which private sellers ultimately were able to circumvent paperwork and background-check requirements imposed on licensees. To this day it "handcuffs the ATF," as gun control advocate Dennis Henigan put it. FOPA also limited federal inspections to once a year, reduced paperwork violations to a misdemeanor, and required prosecutors to prove firearms dealers willfully violated these rules before revoking their licenses. Darknipples (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

GSL Disambiguation AKA
I've noticed several different references to GSL, such as, "private seller loophole", "The Hinckley Loophole", or the "Brady law loophole". If anyone else feels further clarification within this article is prudent, please share your thoughts here. Darknipples (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the whole article is overly simplistic and does not spell out what GSL really means: outlawing all private sales of firearms. GSL is just a term to confuse and scare the soccer moms and pajama boys into voting for something they don't understand.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Mike - As far as we all know, GSL refers to background checks, and has nothing to do with "outlawing all private sales of firearms". I know I'm new here, but I'm doing my best to make sure this article retains an objective and balanced point of view. Do you have a viable citation that states GSL is "just a term to confuse and scare the soccer moms and pajama boys into voting for something they don't understand."? - Respectfully - Darknipples (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I still think that we should include the other names GSL is known by. This has been a major point of contention, so I think it would be prudent to include this somewhere. I'm considering adding them in to one of the existing sections or creating a new "history" section. Are there any objections or suggestions? Darknipples (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

1989 - 'glaring loophole in federal gun laws'' - http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1989/Bar-Association-President-Calls-For-Waiting-Period-For-Gun-Purchases/id-6945aedffca99ae56e662685a3fa799d - Darknipples (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

1991 - "Gun Law Loophole" - (baltimoresun.com) | Gun law loophole lets some felons get firearms - "Many of the criminals on the list were convicted of non-violent offenses -- tax evasion, forgery, even moonshining. But the total also includes an untold number of violent felons, most of whom only became eligible to own guns as a result of a little-noticed clause in a 1986 law backed by the National Rifle Association." "But criminals who had used a firearm in the commission of a felony were not allowed to apply for exemptions until Congress undertook a broad rewrite of gun control laws in 1986." -- Darknipples (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

1992 - "Loophole in Gun Law" - http://www.tulsaworld.com/archives/loophole-in-gun-law-allows-felons-to-own-firearms/article_9d34af7f-b62e-5b38-96bc-ef614dac5a1f.html

1993 - LA Times - "Gun Law Loophole" - http://articles.latimes.com/1993-12-26/news/mn-5670_1_gun-show - Darknipples (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

1993 - "loophole at gun show" - http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-03-31/news/1993090070_1_gun-lobby-buy-guns-gun-shows

1993 - Gun Sale Loophole - http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-03-24/news/1993083193_1_gun-dealers-loophole-gun-shows

1993 - Brady Bill Loophole - http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1290&dat=19931220&id=3fhTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Ao0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5330,2581703

| 1993 LA Times "Gun Law Loophole" - Darknipples (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

1999 -- the so-called Brady law loophole -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/june99/house18.htm

2000 - (p. 648) "Brady Bill Gun Show Loophole" - https://books.google.com/books?id=zibhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA411&dq=gun+show+loophole&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t53WVNqrOsK7ggSRp4ToCg&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=gun%20show%20loophole&f=false

2007 - Brady Bill Loophole - http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/ci_5809237

2013 - According the U.S. Department of Justice, because federal law does not require universal background checks, “individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the transactions.”2 “The private-party gun market,” one study observed, “has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes.”3 Although the private sale loophole is frequently referred to as the “gun show” loophole (because of the particular problems associated with gun shows), it applies to all private firearm sales, regardless of where they occur. http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/

2013 - "Gun Control Loophole" http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/07/The-Gun-Control-Loophole Darknipples (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 Gun Sale Loophole - http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/10/background-check-compromise-would-close Darknipples (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

2013 casual sale exception - http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/gun-shows-internet-keep-weapons-flowing-around-background-checks -- Darknipples (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

2014 Background check loophole - http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2014/08/honor-jim-bradys-legacy-close-loopholes-background-checks -- Darknipples (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"pejorative term-of-art "
Editors (see above) can't make these things up on their own. If there ain't any sources calling this a "pejorative term-of-art" then don't put it in the lead. That'd be an opinion anyway and goes somewhere else in the article. And it's deceptive to say that the lack of a requirement is limited to gun shows - try to edit neutrally, OK? 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey- opinions don't belong in the first sentence. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not an opinion. The term "gun show loophole" is only used by those who think it (whether or not, actually, a "loophole") should be eliminated.  That makes it propaganda.  "Pejorative" is weaker.   I suppose replacing "term-of-art" by "term-of-propaganda" might be adequate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Gun show loophole", is, almost by definition, limited to gun shows. The "lack of requirement" is not so limited.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the first sentence; it is not necessarily to say "pejorative" in the first sentence, if the intended use is stated. Phrasing similar to that in assault weapon seems adequate to indicate the use of the term.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And it was removed. Oh, well.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with IP 162. Based on the RS, "term" is the NPOV term for the lead sentence of this article. Lightbreather (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I see IP 162's point, as per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY Darknipples (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"Gun show loophole is a term-of-art, referring to, by those opposing, private sellers at gun shows not being required to perform a background check on private buyers, consistent with a longstanding practice of private commerce in the United States"
 * This is way better than the previous version. But it reads like shit. Why not say it more simply. "The Gun show loophole exempts sales of firearms between private parties from the requirement for background checks, whether at gun shows or elsewhere." Or something like that. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Got controversy?
Has anyone even given a good look at this article? Three of its sections are: Is that a neutral way of covering a topic or what! 162.119.231.132 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 Current controversy
 * 3 Past controversies
 * 4 Ongoing controversies
 * It's a very controversial topic so we are covering it as such, it might need expansion but it is pretty neutral. - SantiLak  (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of articles cover controversial topics. That ain't an excuse for making them about the controversy instead of the basic topic. To pick an article from your editing as an example, the Los Angeles Police Department is a very controversial law enforcement agency. Nobody would move the article to "Los Angeles Police Department controversy", without discussion, and devote 3/4 of the headings to controversy. This article is using a POV structure and WP:NPOV warns about that. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, under existing law, there is no loophole. All licensed dealers at gunshows are required to conduct NICS checks.  However, there is no way under existing law that private citizens can conduct a NICS check.  Hence, no NICS check is required for private sellers selling to residents of their own state, at least by federal law, at gunshows, or, for that matter, anywhere else in the state.  A few states have passed laws that go beyond the Federal law, that do require NICS checks for private sellers selling guns to private buyers, thereby forcing private sellers to have to use FFLs in their state to transfer a gun between private sellers, but this is not required by Federal law, nor even by most states.  But, that is a different topic altogether.  The topic of this article is therefore a controversy, as some individuals would like for the law to be changed.  The use of a "loophole" in the terminology is factually inaccurate, as no loophole exists.  The title including the term "controversy" is therefore factually accurate.  Instead of contrasting it to a non-existent LAPD Controversy, which is nonsensical, it might be better to contrast it to a title such as Flat Earth Controversy.  A "Flat Earth" does not exist.  Neither does a gun show loophole.  But, there is a controversy amongst those who believe in a Flat Earth and there is also a controversy whether or not the law should be changed, requiring a NICS check be performed for all firearm transfers at gun shows.  But, it really isn't about gunshows, either, as proponents that use the terminology "gun show loophole" actually want all firearm transfers to go through a NICS check.  There is very little POV structure in the existing article in describing well what the controversy is all about.  It is not about a gun show loophole that doesn't even exist under existing law!  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel as though this topic is already under discussion in multiple sections of the talk page. Do we really need a whole new section for this? - respectfully Darknipples (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously "current" and "ongoing" should be merged. Does anyone object to this? Darknipples (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I support merging them. The "ongoing" items should be moved up and merged into the "current" section.


 * I also agree with IP editor 162.119.231.132 that it is overkill to have the title of this article, plus three section headers, include the word "controversy." He/She makes a good point that there are many articles on Wikipedia that are about controversial topics, but no style guide that advises us to put the word "controversy" in those article titles. I am going to re-open the discussion about this in a separate section. Lightbreather (talk)


 * Glad to see some common sense and neutrality here. Just gotta point out that the main source for the so-called "ongoing controversy" is from 1999. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Good article work
I've decided that I'm going to try to get this article in shape for a GA nomination - say in a week, two weeks tops. Anyone who wants to help me is welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No problems in trying for a GA nomination. But, to edit wholesale the entire article with no discussions on the talk page by just one editor with no discussion in an attempt at BRD, with no R or D, is a bridge too far.  Lets discuss each section that you believe needs to be changed, and establish editor consensus on changes first, instead of throwing out the past several years of edits that comprise the article.  Have reverted back to the last stable version by Arthur Rubin, before all the many, many edits by just one editor.  Thanks.  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So which among those edits do you object to? They were mostly gnomish improvements to style, grammar, and structure. Lightbreather (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, please note that the article is months old rather than years. Although it was created in 2006, it was merged into "Gun show" months later. It was made into its own article again just last summer and expanded upon a great deal by and myself, with some input by, too. Lightbreather (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, to start, the preliminary opening lede sentence you proposed is not factually correct: "Gun show loophole is a term referring to the ability of private buyers at gun shows being able to purchase firearms from private sellers without a background check."  Actually, there is no loophole in the law.  Everyone engaged in the business is required to be an FFL.  On the other hand, private individuals have never been required to have an FFL (license) in order to sell their private goods.  In addition, under Federal law, private individuals have no access to the NICS computers.  The statement you proposed for the lede is factually not correct.  That's just a beginning of the issues with the many, many edits you made in one large Bold, Revert, Discussion (BRD) attempt at boldly trying on a major edit.  Now, it is time to discuss and to gain the consensus of the community.  (One question, though.  Are you not still topic banned from editing in this area for 6 months?)  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I will take the change I made to RSN. It's been argued about too much here already. I haven't got the energy to jump back into that again. (I can see having part of the article mention that some people think there is no gun show loophole, or that the term is a "pejorative," but those things don't belong in the lead. Dozens if not hundreds of RS refer to this topic as the "gun show loophole.")


 * I am watching my granddaughter right now, but after her father picks her up, I will start an RSN. Lightbreather (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * So, are you or are you not topic banned, still, from editing in this area? And, are you now refusing to work with other editors in arriving at a consensus before making major changes to an article in a space where you are (or were) previously topic banned?  Miguel Escopeta (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * My topic ban expired yesterday, and your question doesn't seem to AGF. Actually, reverting everything I did today didn't seem very GF. If the changes to the lead are what bothered you, you could have simply reverted that part. Lightbreather (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. The lead sentence is posted to RSN and there is a notice about that below. Next? Do you dispute my removal of the sentence at the end of the lead - sourced to a blogger named "aguadito" - that the term is a "pejorative"? Lightbreather (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits from today, one by one
I'll just put 'em here to keep things moving. If there aren't complaints, I'll put them back. --Lightbreather (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * added "from private sellers" to after "to purchase firearms"
 * standardized date format throughout article
 * standardized percents throughout
 * replaced all caps per WP:ALLCAPS
 * WP:CS1 format and citations/improvements:
 * add "See also" section and items:
 * wikilinks
 * fix quotes and attribution
 * removed first paragraph of "Legislation" section to this talk page for discussion
 * removed a poor source that was sandwiched between two RS
 * c/e sentence about LaPierre's testimony before the House
 * c/e
 * c/e

Looking at just the first one, the gun show loophole is not an ability at all. The fundamental definition is wrong. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That has to do with the lead, which I opened a separate discussion on below: "Notice of discussion of lead sentence at WP:RSN". Let's talk about the lead there. Lightbreather (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There being no complaints about the gnome edits outlined above, I am going to restore them (leaving the lead alone for now). Lightbreather (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we've come a long way. Perhaps we should ping all the editors to see what else needs to improved before we submit at this point? Darknipples (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Background checks
Until now I hadn't noticed this article. This is indeed fertile ground for another "lively discussion" of an article about gun control. For right now I'll limit myself to suggesting a factual improvement that can be made to the current version of the lead section. One of the things it says is that under federal law private sales of firearms, including those at a gun show, are legal and don't require a background check, but some states have passed laws requiring all gun sales to go through an FFL holder where (although the lead doesn't explicitly say this) a background check is required. However, these are not the only two options. For example, in Illinois private sales are allowed, i.e. they don't have to be done through an FFL. However Illinois requires background checks for all firearm sales (with a few limited exceptions). In Illinois you have to have a Firearm Owners ID card, issued by the state police, to legally possess firearms or ammunition, and there's now a requirement for private sales that the seller has to check the buyer's FOID card with the state police, to make sure that it's still valid and to re-do the background check using an automated, real-time system. At a gun show this has to be done using a dial-up check called FTIP, and for a private sale not at a gun show it can be done using a web site, but it amounts to the same thing. My point is that the lead section suggests that either there's no background check, or the sale is done through an FFL, but there are more options than this, for example Illinois where a background check is required but going through an FFL is not required. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer not to add anything to the lead until the RSN is cleared up for the lead sentence. As for other elements, let's follow WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Find the best place in the body to summarize the information into the body, and then summarize that into the lead. Lightbreather (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing plenty of action on this article and its talk page, but I think my first post in this section raises a quite significant point that has not been addressed yet. I agree that the lead should summarize the article, so that would mean that what I'm saying here should be incorporated into the body of the article and also the lead, which still presents a misleading either/or dichotomy. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @ Mudwater - Perhaps we should include a section that includes state laws on background checks? Or, a section for states with specific exceptions or procedures not covered in the lead, like the ones you mentioned. I am no expert on how to create well formulated articles, but I think some kind of "Background Check" section seems prudent. Perhaps it could be incorporated into the Legislation section? Darknipples (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * (1) That sounds reasonable, but the lead section still needs to be changed, for the reason I explained in my first post in this section. (2) If you want to "ping" or notify someone, just typing an @ won't do the trick.  You have to use a Reply to template. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as the "lead follows body" guideline, the article already says, "As of August 2013, 17 U.S. states require background checks at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Four require background checks on all handgun purchases at gun shows: Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Six require individuals to obtain a permit that involves a background check to purchase handguns: Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and North Carolina." So what I'm talking about is already in the body.  Note also that the body says that 17 states require background checks at gun shows, but the lead makes it sound like only seven do.  And I think the article really should call out the point that some states require background checks by requiring all sales to go through an FFL, and some states require background checks in other ways, without requiring the transfer to be done through an FFL. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:18, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead
1. 2. 3. 4.

Legislation
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Current controversy
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

Past controversies
20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

Ongoing controversies
25. 26.#

Source suggestions
High-quality suggestions from a mix of sources:
 * - An early, gun-rights/pro-gun position on the topic.
 * - 2000 report in The New York Times.
 * - op-ed by the Los Angeles Times after Virginia Tech.
 * - First section is about FOPA, with a specific subsection re gun shows.
 * published online at nejm.org on June 30, 2010 - NEJM report saying gun show loophole accounts for only 3 to 8% of private sales; recommends subjecting all private gun sales to "screening and record-keeping requirements that apply to sales by licensed retailers."
 * - a Washington Times report after Sandy Hook.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

More recent sources
I was collecting sources for a different article when I found this from the Seattle Times.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Past Controversies Section
There are multiple sources regarding GSL's connection to the Columbine High School massacre. This section (Past Controversies) seems to be the appropriate place for these citations.

Nevertheless, shortly after the Columbine killings, the various gun prohibition groups began putting out press releases about the "gun show loophole." This is an audacious lie, since there is no "loophole" involving gun shows. The law at gun shows is exactly the same as it is everywhere else. http://www.davekopel.com/NRO/2000/Getting-Columbina-Right.htm

During April 2010, television ads paid for by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), hit the airwaves in selected areas. The ads say, “The Columbine school massacre. The killers got their guns because of a gap in the law, called the ‘gun show loophole’. . . . Close the ‘gun show loophole.’”The claim, and the implication that the Columbine crime would have been prevented if the so-called “loophole” had already been “closed,” are absolutely false. Some clarification of the Bloomberg-MAIG terminology and soundbite is in order: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20100426/michael-bloomberg-s-and-maig-s-deceptiv

In the year after the shooting at Columbine, 800 gun bills were introduced around the country, according to Popular Science Magazine. Less than 10 percent passed. One of the failed efforts included a federal bill to close the gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed dealers to sell guns without background checks.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/27/after-mass-shootings-the-status-quo-reigns-supreme-in-congress/

Checks are not required for transactions by private sellers, who do not have federal licenses and are a regular presence at gun shows. In fall 1998, President Clinton urged Congress to require background checks for these sales, to fix what had become known as the gun show loophole. Less than six months later, Columbine reignited the debate. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were too young to buy the weapons they would use to kill 12 classmates and a teacher in April 1999. So they asked for help from an 18-year-old friend, who later said she chose a private seller at a gun show to avoid a background check. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/26/nation/la-na-gunshow-loophole-20130226

Chicago — When Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold embarked on their shooting spree at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., in 1999, three of the four guns they used were purchased at a gun show by a friend who wasn’t subjected to a background check. Now, on the 11th anniversary of the Columbine school shooting where Harris and Klebold killed 12 classmates and a teacher and injured 23 others before shooting themselves, gun-control activists are focusing on the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows people to purchase guns from private sellers without the normal paperwork and background checks. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0420/On-Columbine-school-shooting-anniversary-focus-on-gun-loophole

The idea that gun legislation is a political nonstarter is commonplace now, having gained currency in the wake of the 2000 election, when many Democrats blamed it for Al Gore's loss. The push to close the gun-show loophole in the wake of the 1999 Columbine shootings petered out, and the assault-weapon ban was allowed to expire in 2004. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/can-sandy-hook-really-change-the-politics-of-guns/266430/

Robyn Anderson, a friend of the two students responsible for the killings at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, assisted them in buying three of the four weapons used in the massacre from different sellers at the Tanner gun show outside of Denver. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has been actively supporting a change in federal law to close the “gun show loophole” which allows unlicensed dealers to sell weapons at gun shows without conducting a Brady law background check. This provision is included in Senate-passed juvenile justice legislation, but has been rejected by the House of Representatives. Following a two-month vacation by the Congress, there appears to be no action in the House-Senate Conference Committee on the juvenile justice bill. The following statement was released recently by her attorneys. Ms. Anderson has not been charged. Statement of Robyn Anderson, January 26, 2000... http://www.usmayors.org/usmayornewspaper/documents/02_21_00/friend_article.htm - Darknipples (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that this merits at least a paragraph in the article. These proposals don't just materialize out of thin air. Regardless of whether one agrees that there is a gun show loophole, what is the background for the concept? Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @ LB - Are you talking about the etymology of the term? If so, that has been quite a hard nut to crack. I have spent months trying to find the earliest citations of it. It's difficult because it is more or less a political concept, and has been referred to under different names (see GSL Disambiguation section in the talk page). Darknipples (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I agree that has been hard to pinpoint. What I mean is, the National Firearms Act and Federal Assault Weapons Ban articles have "Background" sections. The Gun Control Act of 1968 has a "History" section. This article needs a similar section. Lightbreather (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm misinterpreting your discussion, but what I think you are getting at is an "Overview" section that is expanded version of the Lead with additional content. This could easily include "History" and "Background" information and maybe more detail on the groups (factions) involved and their stances. Just my 2 cents... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think having an "Overview" section with "History" and "Background" subsections would be overkill. I think a top level section immediately after the lead (like the articles cited in my last post) would help to put the article in context. First, a section that explains why, how the topic became a topic, then sections going into detail about the proposals and reception to them, including current/recent discussions in RS. Lightbreather (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, but the distinction between this article and those that you cited is that they are single pieces of legislation whereas this article is about several pieces of related legislation and an issue that connects all of them. I can't see how a 4 paragraph Lead is going to accomplish what you are trying to do. I agree with DN's original points and feel that both "History" and "Background" are important to this article in order to represent the issue and content fairly and completely. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no way that four paragraphs are enough to summarize a complicated topic such as this, unlike simple topics such as World War II or Religion. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Preserve statistic
Though I don't mind including this statistic in the article, I'd like to find a better source citation.
 * The National Rifle Association (NRA), citing federal government studies that found less than 1 percent of imprisoned felons said they obtained their guns from shows, says that when gun control supporters refer to the gun show loophole they are not really talking about criminals getting guns, but about the American people owning guns.

I am going to rewrite the sentence in the article without the "citing federal government studies that found less than 1 percent of imprisoned felons said they obtained their guns from shows" part and a better summary of what the NRA said about gun control in this source.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Found it. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I am going to call it a night, but please see the discussion I started below, "Reorganized chronologically". I would be beholden if you'd keep that in mind if you add anything to the article from this source.


 * Here's your source in WP:CS1 cite web format:


 * --Lightbreather (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem sentence
In this paragraph:
 * Opponents of gun control say there is no gun show loophole. In January 2010, the NRA said that gun control supporters' objectives are to reduce gun sales and register guns. They challenge federal jurisdiction in intrastate transactions between private parties, which they say exceeds the federal power created by the Commerce Clause.

The last sentence needs work. Who are they? The article is from 2009. What is the status of this challenge? I will dig around, but if anyone knows... Lightbreather (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

✅ Sorta. Lightbreather (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This sourced could/should be mined for information that complements the McCullagh source above. Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Past
Use of the gun show loophole was advocated in the summer of 2011 by al-Qaeda operative, Adam Gadahn, who said: "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card". In fact, however, individuals cannot legally buy a fully automatic firearm anywhere in the U.S. without undergoing background checks, obtaining approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and paying a tax.

Individuals on the U.S. terrorism watch list are prohibited from air travel but may purchase firearms.

"Gun show loophole": NPOV article title
POV title 2

IP editor 162.119.231.132 made a very good point in the "Got controversy?" section that many articles cover controversial topics, but that it is no excuse for making the articles about the controversy instead of the basic topic. Consider the results of these searches:

I know I agreed to the "controversy" title in August of last year - see discussion "POV-title" started by another editor - but I've changed my mind. Although some disagree that there is a gun show loop hole, that does not mean that there is not one. The majority of sources call the topic the "gun show loop hole," not the "gun show loophole controversy." The former is the commonly recognizable name of the topic. For Wikipedia to tack "controversy" on the end creates a POV title. Lightbreather (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that while the title may offend people of certain persuasions, the term stands on it's own. There are plenty of controversial articles on WP that don't have the word "controversy" in the title. We should be able to adequately address the "controversy" in the lead and/or the body. Darknipples (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support move to Gun show loophole, I'm glad that someone brought this up as I have similar feelings towards the use of the word "controversy". I just went through a content dispute in the Steve Scalise (a U.S. politician) article (actually, I'm not sure its over...) regarding him speaking at an event for a group related to David Duke. I've been advocating for just a simple reporting of facts (as best as we can discern them) without any POV including the use of this word. We should let the content speak for itself and leave it to the Readers to make up their own minds. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

POV title 3

Naming this article "Gun show loophole" violates the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy. The phrase is biased towards a pro-gun-control agenda. A loophole is "a method of escape, especially an ambiguity or exception in a rule that can be exploited in order to avoid its effect." But there's no ambiguity or exception involved. Under federal law, firearm sales by a licensed dealer (FFL) require a background check, and sales by private individuals don't, regardless of where the sales take place, at a gun show or somewhere else. At the same time, some states either have laws that prohibit private sales (i.e. require that all firearms sales be done through an FFL), or laws that require background checks for all, or some, private sales. Of course, whether or not these various laws are appropriate is the subject of much debate. Many people, including some gun owners, think that background checks should be required for all private sales. And I suppose there might be some people who would favor requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows, but not for private sales elsewhere. But there's not a loophole here -- although it might be okay to cover this point somewhere in the article. Some might argue that they can find many references where the phrase "gun show loophole" is used by reliable, third-party sources, but that doesn't mean that the phrase has a neutral point of view. In fact it does not, and using it for the title of the article is inappropriate. Therefore this article should be renamed to something a lot more neutral. I suggest Background checks for firearm sales in the United States. I'm adding a POV tag to the article to let readers know that this is an unresolved issue. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At that point, why not merge it with the existing NICS article? Faceless Enemy (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The gun show loophole was at the center of national debate for at least 13 years, from 1999 (Columbine) to 2012 (Newtown), when it morphed into a debate about universal background checks. The gun show loophole received so much attention for so long that it deserves its own article. The preponderance of RS shows that. Lightbreather (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Mudwater See WP:POVNAMING "In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased." The title of the article meets these standards. Our job is to create an article that does not take sides, but explains them fairly and without bias. Darknipples (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Darknipples on this. Per WP:TITLE, this title satisfies all five points under naming criteria, and it is the topic's WP:COMMONNAME. Since we only just discussed this about a week ago, I have started a discussion about this at WP:NPOVN under Gun show loophole. Lightbreather (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at WP:POVNAMING, I don't think "gun show loophole" is analogous to names like "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", or "Jack the Ripper".  Those other names are way more widely used and accepted than "gun show loophole", which, as I said, is a very biased and misleading term.  And they don't have easily recognizable alternative names.  "Background checks for firearms sales in the United States" is a much more neutral name for the subject.  Private sales at gun shows and private sales not at gun shows are hugely overlapping topics and, as I talked about in my first post in this section, it's actually misleading to talk about privates sales at gun shows without putting it in the context of background checks in general.  So I still really think that the article should be renamed.  Re the previous discussions on this topic, I'm not seeing a consensus to keep the article name as it is, so I think it's appropriate to discuss it further here.  — Mudwater (Talk) 00:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Gun show loophole"
This was in the first paragraph of the body, from previous editing attempts to show that RS call this the "gun show loophole."
 * This was called the "gun show loophole."

I'm preserving it here for use else where in the "Background" section, or early in "Recent developments," if we decide to move the cut-off year. --Lightbreather (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with red links
I'm assuming as part of a good article review, red links will be a ding. Anyone want to create some articles, even if only stubs?

If not, cool. I'll work on them after I finish copy-editing the article body. (I've started at the top and I'm just working my way down, paragraph by paragraph.) --Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Garen Wintemute ✅
 * Berkeley Media Studies Group ✅
 * H. Sterling Burnett ✅

Protocol
There is an open question re the title of this article at WP:NPOVN. Let's let that work for a few days and then, if necessary, start an RFC - a new one, neutrally worded, below. Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive FYI
I realized today that some of our discussions have been archived to a different article's archives! I am going to fetch them here right now. Lightbreather (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅

Reorganized chronologically

To get past the log-jam of debating how to organize this thing, I put it into chronological order. There are now two main sections: "Background" (1998-2001) and "Recent developments" (2009-to date). (We have a gap of eight years?)

I am not wedded to those headers or date ranges, and I'm open to suggestions for other neutral headers, and which dates to put under what. Lightbreather (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR Original research
Some material has been added that is sourced to Congressional records. The material suggests that a certain number of GSL bills have been introduced over a certain number of years, and that none has passed. This is clearly original research by an editor. The refs do not state that information, they link directly to the bills. Are these the only such bills, is this the breadth of the duration of the introductions, are these even notable? We don't know. the material is primary source original research. To include we would need an actual RS article discussing it not editor(s) trying to create research on their own. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To make this easier to discuss, here is what was removed:
 * "Gun Show Loophole" bills were introduced in seven consecutive Congresses, in 2001, 2004 , 2005 , 2007 , 2009 , 2011 , and 2013 . None were passed.

Those links are to Congress.gov, the official website for U.S. federal legislative information.

I believe I've had a discussion similar to this before on another article. I believe to use a bill or law for details about the bill or law is OK, though it would be OR to argue from the (primary) source.

I have asked for advice at WT:LAW - Help, please. Lightbreather (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wait! I found it myself at WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. So there is no need to exclude what I added to the article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * , I agree with ; this is within the guidelines of the OR policy. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. The point is well made. The material should remain. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Legal advocacy group material WP:OR
This is sourced to the group's website. We should look for reliable source for inclusion. Why this group, this opinion? If this is notable for inclusion we should have no problem finding RS news accounts. There are hundreds of advocacy groups opining on this policy area. The NRA material, for example, is sourced to news accounts. If not it would be subject to removal as well. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your recent edit to the main article (removing the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence material and leaving in the NRA material) appears to be WP Undue Weight. The citation is from the New England Journal of Medicine - http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/publications/WintemuteBragaKennedyPPGS.pdf . Could you also please include the sourced news accounts the NRA used so we can compare and determine RS, before leaving this edit? Darknipples (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure I'm following you, DN, but I do think it's odd that this was deleted:
 * The gun control advocacy group Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence call this the "private sale loophole."


 * But this was kept:
 * In January 2010, the NRA said that gun control supporters' objectives are to reduce gun sales and register guns.

They're both advocacy groups, but the one that was kept is pro-gun - and of course way bigger.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

INSERT I don't see where that NRA quote is in the article. It isn't in the section I edited. In the section I removed the LCPGV sentence from the NRA sentence was ref'd to a newspaper. The quote you have above from Cox at the NRA seems undue and primary sourced, it should be removed unless we can find a RS ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If we're going to go with this standard - no advocacy group material - we have a helluva lot of gun-control articles to go around to and remove source citations to advocacy groups. Lightbreather (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Though honestly, I think in this case both the LCPGV and NRA are acceptable per WP:BIASED and/or WP:RSOPINION. Lightbreather (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

, agreed. I think it would be detrimental to the article to gut out such a large amount of acceptable content. We just need to WP:BALANCE Darknipples (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed that both should be kept, provided that the article's tone remains neutral and quotes from each group are clearly presented as such. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The point is not that this is material from an advocacy group. Who cares. The point is that it is ref'd to a non-RS. The NRA information in the section is ref'd to a newspaper. The noteworthiness of the advocacy group's material is an issue. If we had some article in RS saying it, we should use it. Absent any indication that this opinion of this random advocacy group's opinion is notable or noteworthy (a RS discussing, quoting, or using it in anyway would be an indication) it shouldn't be included. That is part of the point about avoiding primary sources. The information dug up seems important to the person doing the original research and it just might not be. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a good mix of sources: government, scholarly, newspaper, advocacy groups (pro and con; nraila.org twice, BTW, not just NRA from a newspaper article). This is an article about a political term so advocacy group opinions, properly weighted and attributed, are appropriate. Lightbreather (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That response is off point. I would be fine with information from advocacy groups if it was not Original Research sourced to primary materials. Is it impossible to find this information in a RS? If it is impossible, that is a strong indication that this is not worthy of inclusion. does this organizations press releases or reports not get picked up in the media? Let's get some RS ref here. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, this concept doesn't have to be sourced to this group. There are hundreds of gun policy advocacy groups, surely one of them got this idea into the public square. If it must be this group's quote it would be nice to hear why? Capitalismojo (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So, it turns out that this is not just a term used by that particular advocacy group and there are plenty of refs suitable for this info. I have added a Huffington Post ref. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Primary"?
FTA: Those concerned about the shows believe they are a primary source of illegally trafficked firearms, both domestically and abroad. [emphasis added] From the GAO source: "around 52 percent of trace requests from Mexico that were submitted to ATF’s National Tracing Center identified the first retail dealer." (Page 14) "From fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2008, of those firearms ATF was able to trace back to a retail dealer, around 95 percent were traced back to gun shops and pawn shops—around 71 to 79 percent from gun shops and 15 to 19 percent from pawn shops, according to ATF. In addition to these firearms that are successfully traced back to a retail dealer, some ATF officials told us, based on information from their operations and investigations, many seized guns also come from private sales at gun shows, though it is impossible to know this exact number due to the lack of records kept for such purchases, which is discussed further below."(Page 21 of GAO).

I don't think "up to 5% plus an unknown proportion of the remaining 48%" hits the threshold for "primary." More relevantly, I couldn't find the word "primary" linked to gun shows in either source. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This part caught my eye, in reference to your question. Hope it helps... "many seized guns also come from private sales at gun shows, though it is impossible to know this exact number due to the lack of records kept for such purchases, which is discussed further below."(Page 21 of GAO). Darknipples (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The "further discussion" is pretty sparse - "Gun shows. According to ATF officials, individuals can use straw purchasers as they would at gun shops to acquire guns from gun shops with booths at gun shows. In addition, individuals can also purchase guns at gun shows from other individuals making sales from their private collections. These private sales require no background checks of the purchaser and require no record be made or kept of the sale. ATF officials told us this prevents their knowing what percentage of the problem of arms trafficking to Mexico comes from these private sales at gun shows." (Page 22). Of the samples ATF was able to trace, 95% came from normal retail sources.  I was unable to find any indication in the source that the remainder would be significantly different.  Again, more relevantly, neither source mentions anything about gun shows or private sales being a "primary" source of trafficked firearms.  Faceless Enemy (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm too preoccupied with the various requests to move and rename this article and/or the Universal background check article to care about the word "primary" right now. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)